When bones are damaged through trauma or disease, bone fixation implants are commonly used to provide anatomical reduction of bone fragments, to maintain their position after reduction, and to ensure union in a desired position. Thus, bone fixation implants are typically designed to achieve proper anatomic fit and function.
Referring to FIGS. 1-2A, in which anatomical structure on the left side of a patient with the letter “L” and mandibular anatomy on the right side of the patient with the letter “R,” a fractured mandible 20 defines a fracture site 32 that separates a pair of fractured bone segments 29a-b. Conventional approaches to fixation of a fractured mandible 20, for instance at the subcondylar region 22 (disposed between the condyle 24 and the ramus 26) include implanting a bone fixation plate 28 over the fracture site 32, and affixing the plate to the mandible 20, for instance using bone screws 30, to connect the fractured bone segments 29. The fracture site 32 in the subcondylar region 22 can be located anywhere between and including the upper subcondylar region 22a and the lower subcondylar region 22b. 
Unfortunately, it has been found that the forces applied to the bone plate 28 during the anatomical function of the mandible 20 can adversely affect the ability of the bone plate 28 to ensure union of the bone fragments in their desired position. For instance, long narrow plates are susceptible to deformation in response to bending and twisting forces that applied to the plates by muscles such as the masseter, temporalis, and medial and lateral pterygoid.
Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 2B, another conventional approach is to add a second bone fixation plate 28A positioned adjacent the bone plate 28, such that each of the pair of plates absorb roughly half of the forces absorbed by the plate 28 alone. However, incorporating a second bone fixation plate adds cost and complexity to the surgical procedure. Yet another mandibular fixation approach includes affixing so-called three-dimensional fixation plates to the mandible 20. These fixation plates are more trapezoidal in shape than the long narrow bone plates 28, and are thus wider to better resist bending and twisting forces. However, since the wider geometry includes two side-by-side screw holes at the apex of the plate, the plates are limited regarding the height on the condyle 24 at which they are placed. Thus, the three-dimensional plates lack positional flexibility, and are difficult to implement when treating a fracture at the upper subcondylar region 22a. 